Your opinion on 'Drag Reduction System'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The only way it can be deployed in the situation you describe is if the driver presses a button to do so in qualifying or practice with his foot off the brake pedal which is driver error. I really don't see how that is different to any other situation involving driver error. Sutil's example which is the one you chose illustrates that perfectly.

---

So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

I can't think of any other switch that, if triggered accidentally, has the potential to cannon a driver into a wall at 300km/h.

If a driver ends up hospitalised by this "innovation" he will get great comfort knowing that it was all his fault.

The DRS has been implemented a*s backwards and should either be disabled or its use reversed. The cars cannot continue to drive around with an electronic overtaking aid that has such negative potential. The DRS may very well have racing potential but the accident potential, in its current form, is far too high - in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

I can't think of any other switch that, if triggered accidentally, has the potential to cannon a driver into a wall at 300km/h.

If a driver ends up hospitalised by this "innovation" he will get great comfort knowing that it was all his fault.

The DRS has been implemented a*s backwards and should either be disabled or its use reversed. The cars cannot continue to drive around with an electronic overtaking aid that has such negative potential. The DRS may very well have racing potential but the accident potential, in its current form, is far too high - in my opinion.

---

You make some interesting points regarding the reversal of the system, slowing the lead car by increasing drag, but surely that proceeds under the premise that inadvertently deploying that system and creating dramatic understeer could be just as dangerous? I can think of a few places I wouldn't fancy that - the tunnel at Monaco for one.

That being the case I guess, from your POV, the system should be removed.

Personally I think the risk is negligible and can only get less so as the technology becomes most tried and tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

You make some interesting points regarding the reversal of the system, slowing the lead car by increasing drag, but surely that proceeds under the premise that inadvertently deploying that system and creating dramatic understeer could be just as dangerous? I can think of a few places I wouldn't fancy that - the tunnel at Monaco for one.

That being the case I guess, from your POV, the system should be removed.

Personally I think the risk is negligible and can only get less so as the technology becomes most tried and tested.

---

The lead car is basically slowed today by not being allowed to deploy the DRS. The significant change with a reversal is that the cars are setup with an open wing such that should a failure occur the failed state will be orders of magnitude safer than it is currently.

The tunnel at Monaco is an excellent location for interpreting examples of a DRS failure.

Under the current DRS, unintentional engagement of the system might very well see a car spear into the right hand wall, accelerating and at an angle that beggars belief. Only lightning reflexes could save this situation. In the reversed DRS, unintentional engagement at this tunnel location would also be unpleasant but would be a decelerating, glancing impact with the left hand wall. Imminently more recoverable from a drivers perspective.

The DRS may reduce its failure rate to nearly zero but which system should be in F1 - the current DRS with, in my opinion, a poor safety design or the reverse of it?

Some good points Whyzars, but personally I think that view overlooks the other factors that easily lead to drivers loosing control. Let's face it, with these cars making the power they do simply using too much throttle in many situations results in the cars spearing a wall. Combined with KERS there are even more places it could happen.

The advantages of DRS are greater as speed increases, but KERS power is available both at high and low speeds. Both require the driver pushing a button, but in the case of DRS the zone is the only place it can be used. The situations you speak of could just as readily happen if a driver uses KERS at the wrong spot on the track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Some good points Whyzars, but personally I think that view overlooks the other factors that easily lead to drivers loosing control. Let's face it, with these cars making the power they do simply using too much throttle in many situations results in the cars spearing a wall. Combined with KERS there are even more places it could happen.

The advantages of DRS are greater as speed increases, but KERS power is available both at high and low speeds. Both require the driver pushing a button, but in the case of DRS the zone is the only place it can be used. The situations you speak of could just as readily happen if a driver uses KERS at the wrong spot on the track.

---

I hear what you're saying and this is not an "F1 must be safe at all costs" thing. They may very well have the right solution to the overtaking problem (if there is one) but in the exact opposite way to what they've implemented.

These cars are violent and unforgiving when they are operating perfectly and I dont argue that. They are also being driven by the best drivers in the world who are able to handle most things these cars throw at them. I just don't believe that the DRS is an optimal implementation from a safety standpoint for the drivers.

My opinion of the DRS is that its a little gimmicky and that tyre and KERS regulations could, in time, achieve the same thing. In fact I think I posted previously that KERS development could accelerate if it was the "push to pass" system of choice.

If they must have the DRS, then in my opinion, the current implementation is flawed. They could achieve the same thing, in a safer manner, if the current implementation was reversed. ie. Set up the car with an open wing and close it on a lead car at designated overtaking points. This approach would slow the rate of acceleration of a lead car and it would incur a slight fuel penalty on each lap that it is defending a straight.

My primary concern with DRS currently is that it alters the handling characteristics to an exaggerated oversteer condition. If it engages unexpectedly, in the wrong spot on a track, it could be catastrophic. If F1 has safety as a primary concern, and I truly believe it does, then, in my opinion, reversing the DRS implementation would be a far safer implementation of the open/closed rear wing technique.

Olivier Panis doesn't think it's a good idea . Here's what he said :

“Really, there are too many things for the driver to be doing on the steering wheel now. Compared with what they did before, I think it's more dangerous and I don't feel good about this philosophy. First he has to change gear…and also if one time the system doesn't work it's going to be pretty dangerous, particularly in a high-speed corner.

“I don't really understand who decides these things and if the guy was smoking something before he did. Really, I don't think F1 needs these types of new things. I hear a lot of drivers complaining about it and I agree with them. I really don't like it and I think it's too dangerous in relation to the show it gives us.”

I thought this quote was particularly apt today , on 4:20 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

Still not a fan. The slipstream is/was a naturally occurring phenomenon and wasn't restricted to a computer-controlled FIA-defined zone so there can be no comparison here.

I actually think the moveable wing would be an interesting addition to the sport IF it was available to all drivers all the time as it is in qualifying, it makes the cars faster and more efficient, and even opens up the possibility of driver errors such as the guy who crashed in qualifying at Melbourne when he pressed the button a little too early exiting the final corner, but the way it is at the minute, I'm sorry, I don't care how entertaining China was, scripted movies and TV dramas can also be entertaining, and for something calling itself a sport it's still a joke to be honest. And that's before we even get to the new tyres for this year as well.

Hopefully some serious thought can be put into the 2013 regs so we can get rid of this and in time it will be just a curious blot on the sport's history.

Give me a so-called "boring" (yeah right) 1990s or early 2000s race any day, at least those were real.

---

Absolutely agree! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Olivier Panis doesn't think it's a good idea . Here's what he said :

“Really, there are too many things for the driver to be doing on the steering wheel now. Compared with what they did before, I think it's more dangerous and I don't feel good about this philosophy. First he has to change gear…and also if one time the system doesn't work it's going to be pretty dangerous, particularly in a high-speed corner.

“I don't really understand who decides these things and if the guy was smoking something before he did. Really, I don't think F1 needs these types of new things. I hear a lot of drivers complaining about it and I agree with them. I really don't like it and I think it's too dangerous in relation to the show it gives us.”

I thought this quote was particularly apt today , on 4:20 .

---

Voice of reason.
DRS is good for drivers who never knew how to overtake the others managed to overtake on other parts of the track then the gimmicky activation zone.

My opinion is that its only marginally less boring than two car drafting [NASCAR], but still a big distraction from actual racing.

So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

---

I would imagine that with no runoff areas the potential danger factor outweighs the sporting intent of the device. A failure could and probably would create a life threatening event.

If you do crash at Monaco you're *usually* going much slower than other tracks. And yes, I know, there is still an element of danger and we've seen some hairy moments there.

I have a few suggestions for F1, all in the name of improving the "racing"

1) Draw grids from hat
2) At a time chosen by the computer, the race leader has to stop his car for 15 seconds, all in the name of making "racing" better
3) At a time chosen by the computer, all drivers have to pit and put on rain tyres when it is dry, this will make the spectacle better
4) First lap has to be driven in reverse
5) Pitcrews will be replaced by highly trained Monkies
6) Every driver will have to start the race with 15 kg less fuel than they would need to finish the race - this will improve the racing, because at various times different drivers will be saving fuel. This will also make F1 more greener
7) Ban drivers from using wet tyres when it is raining, only dry tyres allowed.

These changes will improve the racing massively and will allow F1 to compete against WWF for the top position in sports entertainment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

---

It's a smart move in my opinion. KERS alone is a handful at Monaco, and the sport should never disregard safety in the pursuit of "the show".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

So what's the consensus regarding the deactivation of the system for Monaco?

Personally I think it would be the right (potentially only) choice for a track like Monaco.

What about everyone else?

---

When you say it would be the right "choice" for a track like Monaco, what do you mean exactly? Are you saying that every track ideally would have an overtaking aid tailored for it, KERS regulations here, DRS there? I'm not sure they could ever be that predictable but who knows.


I read somewhere (can't remember where) that, as they learn more about the DRS, there is an option of different gaps for different tracks and Monaco was mentioned as a possibility for a different configuration.

You know that I'm not a fan of the DRS and would be OK with it being deactivated but I didn't get the impression, from the article, that the DRS was not being considered for Monaco rather Monaco might receive more of the DRS magic. :crazy:

DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914

I don't see the point in allowing it during practice sessions anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

I have a few suggestions for F1, all in the name of improving the "racing"

1) Draw grids from hat
2) At a time chosen by the computer, the race leader has to stop his car for 15 seconds, all in the name of making "racing" better
3) At a time chosen by the computer, all drivers have to pit and put on rain tyres when it is dry, this will make the spectacle better
4) First lap has to be driven in reverse
5) Pitcrews will be replaced by highly trained Monkies
6) Every driver will have to start the race with 15 kg less fuel than they would need to finish the race - this will improve the racing, because at various times different drivers will be saving fuel. This will also make F1 more greener
7) Ban drivers from using wet tyres when it is raining, only dry tyres allowed.

These changes will improve the racing massively and will allow F1 to compete against WWF for the top position in sports entertainment.

---

When the FIA adopt all your suggestions, I shall hit you quite hard with a blunt instrument! ;)

I don't think it would help much at Monaco anyways, so I think they may as well limit its use there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914

---

For safety reasons. So it's safe to use at some circuits but not others. I can't think of many other "innovations" where that was the case. Turbos? No. Bit of a handful around the streets but they didn't take them off the cars for Monaco. Double diffuser? No. Perfectly fine everywhere. Slicks. Fine too.

What is it about DRS? If it's not safe to use at Monaco then ultimately it's not the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

DRS could be "banned" at Monaco:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90914

---

If I'm reading this right, they appear to be cautious of their implementation of the DRS and yet may be willing to go with an all or nothing model. Are they making it up as they go along? I do not believe that F1 should have any technology that is disabled/enabled by track. That would be utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Are drivers who support the DRS crossing the line from sportsmen to entertainers?

I realise that reversing the DRS is not going to happen but one way for the current system to be made safer might be to slow the action of the wing. Rather than an instantaneous open/close mechanism, the flap could still slam shut with the brakes but open gradually over a 2 or 3 second time period when engaged. This may reduce some of the impact of the flap opening and might make a failure catchable. The car will still be oversteering from its setup state though. :crazy:

Its all getting a little too hard...

It will be interesting to see how the teams use the DRS at Monza, with the very skinny rear wings they use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allyc85

It will be interesting to see how the teams use the DRS at Monza, with the very skinny rear wings they use.

---

Actually depending on the DRS zone Monza could be very interesting. Most drivers use less wing and suffer through corners, while at times some drivers have used a little more wing and lost top speed and potential passing opportunities. Last year Button ran more wing and had advantage in the twisty parts of the circuit, but couldn't make the passes on the straights. Depending on the DRS zone drivers might be able to come up with a more optimal overall setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

So what you are saying is Alonso deliberately opened his rear wing by activating his DRS outside of the zone and that Sutil deliberately opened his rear wing too early in Melbourne, is that correct?

Sounds like the driver just needs to be careful not to press a button. :eek:

---

Can't speak for Alonso as I didn't really find out what happened (didn't punt him off though did it?) but with Sutil yes it was driver error. I'm sure had you watched the quali session you'd have noticed every driver opening up DRS as soon as they hit the main straight. They all miraculously survived the experience. Sutil probably opened his a fraction earlier than everyone else. He didn't make the same mistake again.

As Airshifter eloquently stated the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Maybe we should cut the horsepower down to something manageable like 20bhp to stop these guys from losing control with the throttle. Ban KERS because deployed (or not deployed) in the wrong place it can cause accidents like Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia. What do we do about brakes? The number of times I've seen people lose control under braking is countless. Ban that too!

I'm still undecided about whether DRS takes away from the 'purity' of racing but honestly I don't think the possibility of it deploying unexpectedly is an issue. Whether it gives the driver too much to concentrate on while overtaking is another issue.

I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.

---

The irony is that even without DRS and if you have the better car it's so easy to slipstream at Spa: La Source-Eau Rouge-Kemmel Straight-Les Combes.

Monza will be interesting. Just like last year which set up strategy will be better: who dares to run minimal or more wing angle of attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Can't speak for Alonso as I didn't really find out what happened (didn't punt him off though did it?) but with Sutil yes it was driver error. I'm sure had you watched the quali session you'd have noticed every driver opening up DRS as soon as they hit the main straight. They all miraculously survived the experience. Sutil probably opened his a fraction earlier than everyone else. He didn't make the same mistake again.

As Airshifter eloquently stated the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Maybe we should cut the horsepower down to something manageable like 20bhp to stop these guys from losing control with the throttle. Ban KERS because deployed (or not deployed) in the wrong place it can cause accidents like Alonso on Hamilton in Malaysia. What do we do about brakes? The number of times I've seen people lose control under braking is countless. Ban that too!

I'm still undecided about whether DRS takes away from the 'purity' of racing but honestly I don't think the possibility of it deploying unexpectedly is an issue. Whether it gives the driver too much to concentrate on while overtaking is another issue.

I do think it should be banned for Monaco though, and I agree with the post about it posing interesting questions for Monza as it will for Spa later in the season. It certainly adds an interesting extra dimension.

---

I have watched every qualifying and every race. Alonso got lucky and the Sutil incident illustrated perfectly why the DRS is an accident waiting to happen. To support the DRS we are being asked to believe that electronics never fail.

Of course the number of things that can punt a car off are numerous. Does that mean we keep adding to that list until the cars are crashing more regularly? Driver error doesn't make a crash OK.

I can't see why the DRS would be acceptable at some tracks and not others. If the DRS is inappropriate for Monaco then it should be banned from all tracks. No ifs, no buts.

Unfortunately, I don't consider the DRS to be an "interesting extra dimension". I see it as a thought bubble that has introduced significant risk to fix a non existent problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

. To support the DRS we are being asked to believe that electronics never fail.

---

One of the cars in our driveway is fly by wire, and it's not nearly to the level of electronics in a modern day F1 car. Being some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

One of the cars in our driveway is fly by wire, and it's not nearly to the level of electronics in a modern day F1 car. Being some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

---

:up: I've only had one throttle failure (stuck wide open) and that was a traditional mechanical system. Of course electrics can fail, but so can anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

...some of them are essentially using a system without a real throttle but instead electronic timing and fuel control to control engine output, just about every major aspect in F1 performance relies on electronics.

---

I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

:up: I've only had one throttle failure (stuck wide open) and that was a traditional mechanical system. Of course electrics can fail, but so can anything else.

---

Hi Airshifter and Sonic,

With the limited testing miles in F1 these days I would hope that they've used solenoid's from domestic cars and not their own, lightweight developments. :)

My concern with the DRS is that the rules governing its usage appear to be less than optimal when failure is an ever present possibility. I agree that electronics have improved immensely but that doesn't excuse the DRS having a failed state that may be questionable when, in my opinion, it needn't be.

If they are considering disabling the DRS in Monaco then we must ask why. This disabling might also bring a whole new facet to F1 as well - formula by track so to speak. The race in China was exceptional arguably, in no small part, because of the DRS. Turkey could easily be exceptional because of the DRS for all the wrong reasons. That goes to the heart of the problem as I see it.

They are already allowing the opening of the rear wing in practice so why not formalise it and make that the default position. Allow the cars to be set up with the wing open and close it on a lead car in the designated overtaking section. This would, in my opinion, be safer than the current arrangement.

It does no service to the DRS to have a cloud over it when a rethink of its usage may provide the safeguards that would see it being acceptable on all tracks if safety is the reason that they are considering the ban in Monaco.

2010 was a good year for F1 and 2011 is looking even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

The race in China was exceptional arguably, in no small part, because of the DRS.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Huh?

---

Huh? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

Huh? :)

---

Your sentence makes no sense.

Whyzars, you have it the wrong way round. You seem to believe mechanical control is more reliable than electronic but the reverse is true. The lack of moving parts makes them inherently more reliable whether in domestic or racing use. Hardly anything in f1 is not electronically controlled these days as you know yet reliability at the moment is exceptional and most retirements are due to mechanical component failure.

Attacking drs because it is electronically controlled and failure could have severe consequences makes no sense. The same is true of engines, gearboxes, diffs, the lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Whyzars, you have it the wrong way round. You seem to believe mechanical control is more reliable than electronic but the reverse is true. The lack of moving parts makes them inherently more reliable whether in domestic or racing use. Hardly anything in f1 is not electronically controlled these days as you know yet reliability at the moment is exceptional and most retirements are due to mechanical component failure.

Attacking drs because it is electronically controlled and failure could have severe consequences makes no sense. The same is true of engines, gearboxes, diffs, the lot.

---

This has never been about electronic versus mechanical as both are very reliable and both are prone to failure and both are prone to drivers making mistakes when using them. For me this has always been about pure risk. Why do something one way when another way might have less risk attached.

If the cars are setup with the wing open then an inadvertant closing of the wing, whether via a failure or driver error, will cause a braked understeering condition as opposed to the current situation where inadvertant opening will cause an accelerated oversteering condition.

If they ban the use of the DRS at Monaco then I will be very interested to hear of what scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid. I don't think the technology has a problem but I do think that the rules surrounding the DRS might have a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Your sentence makes no sense.

---

The race in China was exceptional. We could argue that it was, in no small part, because of the DRS.

Typing faster than my brain could process...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveA

I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

---

You might want to check into the latest developments in the F1 world. Several teams are using engines that are for all practical purposes throttleless systems. This is to keep the air flowing through the engine to aid in producing downforce, and the primary reason for the forward mounted exhausts popping up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

You might want to check into the latest developments in the F1 world. Several teams are using engines that are for all practical purposes throttleless systems. This is to keep the air flowing through the engine to aid in producing downforce, and the primary reason for the forward mounted exhausts popping up.

---

I've read some stuff about variable valve lift, is this what they use?

Seems a lot more mechanically complicated than a conventional throttle, so potentially less reliable.

This will help you catch up

http://www.f1racing.us/blog/blown-diffusers/

http://www.team-sport.co.uk/formula-...ually-do-then/

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/0...aren-diffuser/

Quote:

---

One of Red Bull’s secrets is a setting on the Renault engine for use on the final crucial lap in qualifying, whereby the ignition is retarded on the over-run, which maintains exhaust gas pressure even when the driver lifts off the throttle. This maintains the performance of the blown diffuser and keeps the downforce up when it’s most needed. It thus avoids the main problem of an exhaust blown diffuser whereby when a driver lifts off the throttle for a corner, the downforce goes missing when you most need it and the rear stability changes.

It’s not something you can do for more than a lap or two as the temperatures go sky high, which damages the engine, but it gives that vital fraction of a second which keeps Red Bull ahead of the rest in qualifying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveA

I think you just described a Diesel engine there, a spark ignition engine still requires a throttle (whether fly-by-wire or manually operated).

---

No they don't - think about it... the "throttle" moderates airflow - it all goes back to carburettor engines when the throttle literally "throttled" the engine by closing off the air/fuel mixtures going into the cylinders.

With the advent of fuel injection the "throttle" is actually a control on the fuel side........

WT